ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[G.R. No. 133546. June 7, 2006]

SPOUSES MANSUETO* CUBAR AND MA. NENA CUBAR versus SY KOC TIONG, OR SKT SHIPPING CORPORATION AND AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL UNDERWRITERS (PHILS.), INC.

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated JUNE 7, 2006

G.R. No. 133546 (Spouses Mansueto * Cubar and Ma. Nena Cubar versus Sy Koc Tiong, or SKT Shipping Corporation and American International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc.)

Before us is a petition for certiorari and mandamus, which assails the December 15, 1997, Resolution [1] cralaw of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51781, which denied petitioners' motion to dismiss respondents' appeal, and the Resolution [2] cralaw of April 20, 1998, which denied the motion for reconsideration. The instant petition likewise seeks to compel the appellate court to dismiss said appeal.

The facts are as follows:

On November 11, 1990, [3] cralaw an inter-island vessel owned by respondent SKT Shipping Corporation sank in the waters between Iloilo and Antique. Among the casualties was petitioners' son, Manuel S. Cubar, who was then working as an engineering apprentice in the vessel. Believing that it was the captain's negligence that killed their son, petitioners sued respondents for damages at the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 29.

Upon receiving the summons, respondents filed their answers. Petitioners then filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, which the trial court denied on July 20, 1992. Aggrieved, petitioners questioned the denial on certiorari at the Court of Appeals. On December 28, 1992, the Court of Appeals granted the petition. [4] cralaw The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial and ordered it to render a summary judgment.

After one hearing conducted on April 25, 1994, the trial court rendered a summary judgment on October 2, 1995. The dispositive portion reads:

PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered ordering defendant SKT Shipping Corporation to pay plaintiffs the amount of P553,446.00 as compensatory damages, P50,000.00 as death indemnity, P100,000.00 as moral damages and P50,000.00 as attorney's fees, all with legal interests from the filing of the complaint, until fully paid: ordering defendant American International Underwriters (Phils.), Inc. to pay plaintiffs the amount of P50,000.00 to be deducted from the said P553,446.00 due from SKT Shipping Corporation, with costs against defendants.

SO ORDERED. [5] cralaw

Respondents appealed the judgment, contending among others, that the amount of damages awarded was not supported by any piece of evidence. Upon order of the appellate court, respondents filed their appellants' brief. [6] cralaw

Petitioners then filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal. [7] cralaw They urged the court to dismiss the appeal for failure of the appellants' brief to include a subject index, a statement of the case, statement of facts, and arguments with page references to the records in violation of Section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44 of the Rules of Court. [8] cralaw These defects, according to petitioners, were fatal and warranted the dismissal of the appeal under Section 1 (f) of Rule 50. [9] cralaw

On December 15, 1997, the Court of Appeals denied petitioners' motion to dismiss appeal. The appellate court held that there was substantial compliance with the rules and stressed that in the interest of justice the appellants' brief had been admitted in a previous order. [10] cralaw Later, the Court of Appeals admitted respondents' amended appellants' brief filed with leave of court. [11] cralaw

On April 20, 1998, the appellate court denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition.

Petitioner contends,

I.������� THAT [THE] RESPONDENT COURT GRAVELY ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO DISMISS APPEAL AND IS NEGLECTING A LEGAL DUTY IN NOT DISMISSING THE SAME; AND

II.������ THAT PETITIONERS HAVE NO PLAIN, SPEEDY AND ADEQUATE REMEDY IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF LAW, EXCEPT THE PRESENT PETITION. [12] cralaw

Essentially for our resolution is the issue whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to dismiss appeal.

The petition is without merit.

The grounds for dismissing an appeal under Section 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of Court are discretionary upon the Court of Appeals. This can be seen from the very language of the Rules which uses the word 'may' instead of 'shall.' In De Leon v. Court of Appeals, [13] cralaw we held that Rule 50, Section 1, which provides specific grounds for dismissal of appeal, manifestly "confers a power and does not impose a duty. What is more, it is directory, not mandatory." With the exception of Section 1(b), the grounds for the dismissal of an appeal are directory and not mandatory, and it is not the ministerial duty of the court to dismiss the appeal. The discretion, however, must be a sound one, to be exercised in accordance with the tenets of justice and fair play, having in mind the circumstances obtaining in each case. [14] cralaw

Here, the Court of Appeals rightly exercised its discretion in denying petitioners' motion to dismiss on a finding that the appellants' brief substantially complied with the rules. The requirements of Section 13, Rule 44 [15] cralaw are intended to aid the appellate court in arriving at a just and proper conclusion of the case. [16] cralaw Where the citations found in the appellants' brief could sufficiently enable the appellate court to locate expeditiously the portions of the record referred to, and apprises said court of the essential facts and nature of the case, as well as the issues raised and the laws necessary for its disposition, there is substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 13, Rule 44. Such determination was properly within the appellate court's discretion. Nothing in the records indicates that the appellate court exercised its discretion capriciously, whimsically, nor with a view of permitting injury upon a party litigant.

A litigation is not a game of technicalities. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts. Rules of procedure are used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice.

The demands of justice require the appellate court to resolve the issues before it. Dismissing respondents' appeal could give rise to the impression that the appellate court may be fostering injustice should the appeal turn out to be meritorious. Thus, it is far better and more prudent for the court to excuse a technical lapse and afford the parties a substantive review of the case on appeal, to attain the ends of justice than to dismiss said appeal on technicalities.

Considering that the appellants' brief was sufficient in form and substance, the amended appellants' brief, which made no substantial changes to the original, is likewise sufficient, contrary to petitioners' contention. The Court of Appeals did not gravely abuse its discretion when it admitted the amended brief, filed with leave of court.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The Order dated December 15, 1997, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 51781 as well as the Resolution of April 20, 1998 are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

* Also referred to as "Monsueto" in other parts of the records.

[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 48-49. Penned by Associate Justice Angelina Sandoval-Gutierrez (now a member of this Court), with Associate Justices Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (now also a member of this Court), and Omar U. Amin concurring.

[2] cralaw Id. at 54.

[3] cralaw November 12, 1990 in other parts of the records.

[4] cralaw Records, pp. 283-295, 497. Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 28759.

[5] cralaw Id. at 497-498.

[6] cralaw CA rollo , pp. 117-130.

[7] cralaw Id. at 153-160.

[8] cralaw SEC. 13. Contents of appellant's brief.- The appellant's brief shall contain, in the order herein indicated, the following:

(a) A subject index of the matter in the brief with a digest of the arguments and page references, and a table of cases alphabetically arranged, textbooks and statutes cited with references to the pages where they are cited;

(b) An assignment of errors intended to be urged, which errors shall be separately, distinctly and concisely stated without repetition and numbered consecutively;

(c) Under the heading "Statement of the Case," a clear and concise statement of the nature of the action, a summary of the proceedings, the appealed rulings and orders of the court, the nature of the judgment and any other matters necessary to an understanding of the nature of the controversy, with page references to the record;

(d) Under the heading "Statement of Facts," a clear and concise statement in a narrative form of the facts admitted by both parties and of those in controversy, together with the substance of the proof relating thereto in sufficient detail to make it clearly intelligible, with page references to the record;

(e) A clear and concise statement of the issues of fact or law to be submitted to the court for its judgment;

(f) Under the heading "Argument," the appellant's arguments on each assignment of error with page references to the record. The authorities relied upon shall be cited by the page of the report at which the case begins and the page of the report on which the citation is found;

(g) Under the heading "Relief," a specification of the order or judgment which the appellant seeks; and

(h) In cases not brought up by record on appeal, the appellant's brief shall contain, as an appendix, a copy of the judgment or final order appealed from.

[9] cralaw SECTION 1. Grounds for dismissal of appeal.- An appeal may be dismissed by the Court of Appeals, on its own motion or on that of the appellee, on the following grounds:

x x x x

(f) Absence of specific assignment of errors in the appellant's brief, or of page references to the record as required in section 13, paragraphs (a), (c), (d) and (f) of Rule 44;

x x x x

[10] cralaw Rollo , pp. 48-49.

[11] cralaw CA rollo , pp. 183-185, 220-239, 240.

[12] cralaw Rollo , p. 6.

[13] cralaw G.R. No. 138884, June 6, 2002, 383 SCRA 216.

[14] cralaw Heirs of Spouses Eugenio Natonton and Regina Arcilla v. Sps. Eulogio and Lily Magaway , G.R. No. 147011, March 31, 2006, p. 6.

[15] cralaw Supra note 8.

[16] cralaw Philippine Coconut Authority v. Corona International, Inc., G.R. No. 139910, September 29, 2000, 341 SCRA 519, 526


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com